Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfR)
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Help:Permanent link.
This page is under extended confirmed protection, but non-EC users may edit its subpages.

    Requests for permissions
    Shortcuts

    This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and template editor rights, and AutoWikiBrowser access.

    Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".

    Requests for permissions are archived regularly; please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.

    Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 20:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    Permissions

    Handled here

    • Account creator (add request • view requests): The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the request an account process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease.
    • Autopatrolled (add request • view requests): The autopatrolled flag is granted to users who are active in the creation of new articles. This tool is granted so their creations are auto patrolled in Special:NewPages. Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag generally should have created at least 25 articles and must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability.
    • AutoWikiBrowser (add request • view requests): AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows, designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Please read the rules of use and registration requirements on the main page before requesting permission. This is not a true user right, but access needs to be granted by administrators just like other permissions. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. Users with under 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits are rarely approved. You will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access.
    • Confirmed (add request • view requests): The confirmed flag may be granted to new users who have not yet hit the threshold for autoconfirmed status. These are users who have not had both 10 edits and 4 days experience. People with this flag can upload files and edit semi-protected pages before hitting the autoconfirmed flag. Users requesting this flag must indicate clearly why they should be exempted from the customary confirmation period.
    • Event coordinator (add request • view requests): The event coordinator user right allows editors to create multiple new accounts, and to temporarily confirm accounts so that they can create new articles.
    • Extended confirmed (add request • view requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days, but may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access. The flag allows users to edit pages under extended confirmed protection.
    • File mover (add request • view requests): The file mover user right is intended to allow users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to policy, with the ease that autoconfirmed users already enjoy when renaming Wikipedia articles.
    • Mass message sender (add request • view requests): Mass message sender enables users to send messages to multiple users at once. This flag is given to users who have made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use.
    • New page reviewer (add request • view requests): The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled and use the page curation toolbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Page mover (add request • view requests): The page mover user right allows users experienced in working with article names to move them, subject to policy, without leaving behind a redirect. They may also move all subpages when moving the parent page(s). General guidelines include making 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Pending changes reviewer (add request • view requests): The reviewer flag is granted to users who are experienced enough with Wikipedia editing and its policies for contributing to the process of reviewing articles placed under pending changes.
    • Rollback (add request • view requests): Rollback enables users to remove vandalism much more quickly and efficiently than by undoing it. Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted. For a more detailed explanation of rollback and information about when it is appropriate to use the tool, see Wikipedia:Rollback. For information about the technical details of the feature, see here.
    • Template editor (add request • view requests): The template editor flag allows users to edit protected templates and Lua modules. General guidelines for granting include making at least 1,000 edits overall (with at least 150 to templates or modules), being a registered user for over a year, and having a record of successfully proposing significant edits to several protected templates. Users should demonstrate proficiency with template syntax and an understanding of the need for caution when editing heavily-used templates.

    Handled elsewhere

    Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

    Removal of permissions

    If you wish to have any of your permission flags (except administrator) removed, you should contact an administrator. If you want your administrator flag removed, you should contact a bureaucrat.

    This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard.

    The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags are removed at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.

    Process

    Requestors

    To make a request for a permission, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission.

    Any editor may comment on requests for permission.

    Administrators

    Full instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions

    Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback and template editor flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse.

    Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. If a user already has the requested permission, or is autoconfirmed and requesting confirmed, {{already done}} should be used. N hours after the last comment was made (as specified by the config), the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Archiving for more information on archiving functionality.

    Other editors

    Requests for permissions is primarily intended for editors requesting a permission for their own account. Other editors are welcome to comment if they have specific information that is relevant to that request that a patrolling administrator is unlikely to discover for themselves. Otherwise, since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general comments or 'clerking' by other users are rarely helpful. Non-administrators cannot "decline" to grant a request, because they're not in a position to accept it.

    A limited exception to this is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, where third party nominations are encouraged. Other editors should still avoid offering general remarks on requests and leave the final decision to an administrator.

    Current requests

    Account creator

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    Autopatrolled

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:RodRabelo7

    Hello,

    I've been working on articles related to Tupi–Guarani languages for quite some time now, specifically Old Tupi (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), as well as topics related to the culture of the people who spoke this language (e.g. 1, 2). Despite this editorial interest, I also create articles on a wide variety of topics (e.g. 1, 2), not limiting my contributions to the project. Most of my articles result from research conducted by myself, meaning that, rather than being mere translations from other projects, they constitute original content created through the analysis of various reliable sources, not always in English. Some of my articles have been featured on the main page through the Did You Know section (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I see myself continuing to contribute consistently to Wikipedia in the future, and therefore I would like to obtain autopatrolled rights. I have been a rollbacker for some time now, for what it is worth.

    Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, a very interesting body of work, thank you. – Joe (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VaudevillianScientist

    I have created over 120 articles (over 40 since 2023) on various STEM-related subjects, several of them received thanks from others and very few have so far had issues. My focus is on STEM-related biographies, concepts, or entities, with sufficient reference links. All my new articles are in the English Wikipedia, but I also do minor edits on factual information in other languages. I'm requesting autopatroller rights in the English Wikipedia to reduce the workload of other editors in reviewing my articles. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AutoWikiBrowser

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


    User:CanonNiAWB

    Hi. I would like AWB rights granted to my alternate account, CanonNiAWB, to clean up maintenence categories and fix typos. Thanks! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Malinaccier (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WiinterU

    I would like to have autowikibrowser rights to speed up edits that are too slow when done manually. I work with {{infobox company}} articles and would like to use AWB for speeding up edits that would take way too long to edit manually. WiinterU 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't intend to process this request, but I thought I'd help speed it along by asking you to elaborate a bit on what you intend to use it for @WiinterU. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WiinterU: Any thoughts on what you'd be using AWB for? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arrorro

    I've been creating and expanding many articles based on foreign language wikipedia plus English sources. Lots of cleanup for most of the results. Arrorro (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arrorro, are you doing cleanup on the page you are writing, or the pages that you are coming across? For what type of cleanup are you planning on using AWB? Primefac (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am doing sort of a mass China article creation by using Chinese sources and the Chinese, German, Japanese wikipedia articles. My translations are rough and I produce rather a lot of mistakes. If AWB is not appropriate for checking your own work, that's fine. It's just that copyediting can get pretty tough.
    p.s. I would be willing to start editing more of the China articles I come across. Some are fairly unedited machine translations, as far as I can tell. Arrorro (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arrorro: Not really sure how AWB would help with that? I'd suggest checking your articles a bit closer before publishing, or going through and editing them individually. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks! Arrorro (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Confirmed

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    Event coordinator

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:Octavosaurus

    Hi there! I would like to request event co-ordinator rights for an editathon I am running as part of the Art Libraries UK and Ireland Conference 2024 on Wednesday 3rd July: https://arlis.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Updated-Conference-Programme-2024.pdf

    We are expecting around 60 - 80 delegates at this event, so having the Events Co-Ordinator rights will help me manage signups during the in-person workshops I am hosting. I am an accrediated Wikimedia UK trainer and have been running and assisting with events since 2023. Octavosaurus (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done (granted until July 6) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:CanonNiAWB

    Hi. Could EC rights be granted to my other account, CanonNiAWB? This would make it much easier to clean up extended protected pages. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File mover

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    Mass message sender

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


    New page reviewer

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:IgnatiusofLondon

    I was a new page reviewer until earlier this month. As my curation log suggests, while this wasn't the focus of my wikiediting, I occasionally dipped into the backlog to review new articles, a fair few of which I draftified or sent to AfD (so they weren't all easy!). I think my reviews were adequately accurate to demonstrate my suitability for the permission, and I'd like to continue helping to reduce the backlog as my wikiediting time allows. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy ping for @Red-tailed hawk, who first offered me trial permissions. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IgnatiusofLondon: I'm afraid your draftify log raises several questions:
    1. User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold was technically outside of WP:NPPHOUR, but from the edit summary and placeholder sections it should have been pretty clear that the creator was still working on it (see WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#5). Wouldn't an {{unsourced}} tag have been sufficient?
    2. Draft:Belarus–Maldives relations has 21 inline citations for less than 50 characters of prose and two tables, yet you draftified it as "needing more sources". On the creator's talk page you specified that what was missing sources discussing and explaining the international relations between Belarus and the Maldives, not simply side-by-side fact profiles about the countries' basic information. What is the policy basis for excluding an article lacking such sources from mainspace?
    3. Draft:Battle of Orurillo was also draftified for lacking sources. Why was the {{unreferenced}} tag, already added by another reviewer, not sufficient? Did you note that there is a Spanish article on the same battle that does cite sources?
    4. Also on Draft:Battle of Orurillo, this is a clear attempt to revert your draftification. Why did you move it back to draftspace, instead of mainspace?
    5. Did you not notice that Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux had previously been moved to mainspace by the creator, and was thus ineligible for draftification per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#6?
    6. Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux is a lengthy article, apparently translated or adapted from fr:Reprise du fort de Vaux, with 121 inline citations. The reasons you gave for draftifying it include an essay-like tone, overuse of primary sources, and possibility of a merge. Why could these issues not be addressed in mainspace?
    I do appreciate that you took the time to leave specific feedback for the creators of each of these articles, rather than only relying on the script's canned reasons, but I'm worried that you are applying a significantly higher standard to new articles in mainspace than the community expects from new page patrol, and would appreciate it if you could reflect on your approach before any extension of the NPR right. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Joe, thanks for taking the time to offer such detailed and thorough feedback. I really appreciate the time and care you took to compile this report.
    1. At the time of my review, User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold provided little prose not already sufficiently covered in Gold, and as a recent AfC review suggested, it seems implausible that the topic will be better addressed as a standalone article. In my view, the appropriate action for this article would have been not to draftify, but to redirect to Gold. The editor, however, was part of a wikied course, which left me to believe that draftification was the best option so that the editor could continue to work on it for their assignment. Keeping the article in mainspace with an unsourced tag seemed an unsuitable outcome given that the topic is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.
    2. The policy basis for draftifying Belarus–Maldives relations is that the article did not present sources demonstrating the topic's notability. Moreover, the article fundamentally did not address the topic suggested by its title, and a direct side-by-side comparison of two arbitrarily-chosen countries seems outside Wikipedia's scope, making a page move unsatisfactory. The best option, in my judgment, was draftification to allow editors time to provide sources demonstrating the topic's notability, which I could not uncover from an online search.
    3. Looking back, this draftification was a mistake. I am sceptical of other-language Wikipedias, and I have previous experience specific to the Spanish-language Wikipedia's much less stringent standards of sourcing. This scepticism probably clouded my judgment, and I admit that an unsourced tag would have been the correct course of action for this article.
    4. You're quite right that this revert was a mistake, and I should have let another reviewer deal with it.
    5. I didn't notice this, and likely assumed that the script would have notified me. The article was indeed ineligible for draftification.
    6. The citations are primary: the article was quite evidently the result of a very bright editor's diligent research into an encounter in the Battle of Verdun. The article made clear that its intention was to promote knowledge and interest in this encounter. While my advice to the editor mostly concerned the tone of the article, I should have emphasised more greatly the final point in my comments, which was that by relying on primary sources, the article did not establish the topic's notability [separate to the battle], which led me to conclude that draftification was the appropriate outcome.
    I agree that I have been hasty to draftify articles, and, as you say, hold articles in the new page feed to a higher standard than the process expects. With this in mind, I'd like to withdraw my request until I have matured a little more in my Wikipedia journey. Once again, Joe, I'm very grateful for your feedback, and if you have any further comments on the above, I would be delighted to continue this opportunity to learn and grow. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ToadetteEdit

    Trial ends June 16, and backlog drive is nearly over. I am reapplying early since some requests may not be answered after two weeks from now. I would like to review more pages and hopefully clear down the backlog. I have reviewed more than 100 articles so far and only very few were unreviewed. Please consider my reviews and AfDs before processing my application. ToadetteEdit! 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PK-WIKI

    Experienced editor wanting to contribute to the new page backlog. I was recently granted a trial and did review some pages during that time, but I believe the trial has now expired. Requesting permanent New Page Reviewer permission based on those reviews and my experience in page creations and deletion discussions. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @PK-WIKI: As far as I can tell you only reviewed two articles during your last trial. I don't mean to be rude—every review helps—but how do you expect us to make a judgement based on that? I can grant you a third trial, but are you honestly going to use it? – Joe (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A third trial would be appreciated. Part of the problem is that I apply for the permission, wait X days for it to be approved, don't notice it's approved as I'm busy doing other things. Then the moment I wanted to review has now passed and the trial eventually expires. I will hopefully do enough to have it set permanently this time... PK-WIKI (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done for a further three month trial. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flemmish Nietzsche

    I've been going through the new pages feed for a while now without the right, to clean up new pages and nominate for CSD those pages that fall under the criteria, (at least 50 by now, weird how the log is a red link) and I've also participated in AfD and other deletion venues as well. The reviewer right should help when going through the new pages feed as I have been doing to better help misguided editors and to more efficiently go through new articles, and of course reduce the almost 10000-tall backlog that still wasn't gotten rid of in the May backlog drive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your CSD and PROD logs are red because you have to opt-in to them in your Twinkle preferences. It'd be helpful if you did this because then we can see what proportion of your nominations are acted on. However, I can see from your deleted contributions log that you are an active CSD nominator, so no problems there.
    On the other hand, you don't have a lot of experience with AfD, AfC, or page creation. Part of the reason we look for experience in those areas is to see how you interact with other editors, which is a very important part of NPP given that it is often the first or only time new editors interact with the wider community. CSD patrolling is not a good substitute there because it is quite mechanical in nature and doesn't require a lot of communication. And looking at your draftify log I'm afraid I do have some concerns on that score. In particular, I cannot imagine a scenario where it is appropriate to mass draftify four articles by one editor and not leave more than a templated message explaining why. One of these was also not eligible for draftification because it had already been moved into mainspace from a sandbox (plus technically already draftified once, under a different title).
    Considered together, thank you for volunteering, but I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting new page patrolling right now. If you're still interested, I would recommend spending some time at AfC, where you will have the opportunity to show that you can interact positively with new editors and review their work in a encouraging way, then perhaps re-requesting in a few months. You should also make sure you're familiar with the guidance on draftspace in WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:DRAFTIFY. Marking  Not done for the bot. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the pointers. About the JCO Global Oncology article, does WP:DRAFTNO#6 really apply if the creator of the article moved into mainspace? If a recently autoconfirmed user creates an obviously needing-draftifying article (in this case it had grammar problems, only referenced itself properly, and had ref numberings [1] without any actual refs for them) but simply moves if from their sandbox to mainspace, does justifiably moving it back out of mainspace constitute "edit warring" as said in DRAFTNO#6? It's not a problem now specifically with that article though as Randykitty significantly cleaned it up, but I feel this should be an IAR excuse.
    I also have had a lot of experience with newer editors when CSD patrolling (through deletion contestions and various other discussions) but those of course have been deleted. I'll try to do some AfC work soon. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does. Your opinion that an article does not belong in mainspace does not trump the creator's clearly-expressed opinion that it does. Regardless of the state of the article, when two people disagree the next step is to seek a consensus. This isn't just a procedural rule but an important principle across the project and especially at NPP; see WP:NPPCON.
    Also note that neither problems of grammar or reference formatting are good reasons to move a page to draftspace, because they are easily fixed in mainspace (as Randy has just demonstrated). – Joe (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I know what a consensus is by now, but I'll those things in mind, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75DD

    I've been active in the NPP BACKLOG and the NEW PAGE FEED and I noticed that the Backlog keep increasing every single day, I really wish to help reduce it even though I can't do it all, and each time I'm here I promise to dedicate my time to the New page feeds and also stick to the policies. Thanks in advance. 75DD (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. You do not meet the minimum edit requirements specified in WP:NPPCRITERIA. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks, I'll request when I meet it. 75DD (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raintheone

    Hello there. I am a long standing user with a good handle on guidelines and policy. I have taken part in AFDs, more recently improving articles to standards which resulted in them being kept. Elsewhere I have improved new articles that on first glance do not meet GNG but looking BEFORE I have found sources for improvement. So I think I am fair with new content. I also create many new articles, which are now automatically accepted but not everyone has this luxury. I recently became aware of this backlog and I would like to help. Rain the 1 21:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page mover

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


    User:Zanahary

    I've been editing seriously for one year, have 4,300+ edits, I've participated in RMs (including initiating them), and I've never had any behavioral blocks. Zanahary (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, mainly for lack of demonstrated need (very few RM/TR requests, not many moves). Primefac (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chaotic Enby

    Hello, I'd like to request the right mostly to avoid leaving R2 pages behind when draftifying (User:Chaotic Enby/Draftify log), although I've also participated in some RMs and RM/TRs. Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Elli (talk | contribs) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Pending changes reviewer

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:RowanJ LP

    I've created many biographies and have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. I've fixed vandalism many times and fixed many biography of living persons violations. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RITWIK MAHATA

    I am requesting for pending changes reviewer rights so that I can review pending changes. Ritwik Mahatat@lk 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Imsaneikigai

    I have been editing for around 2.5 years now, with specialised focus on field of entertainment. I also often correct typos or do general fixes on articles of various subjects. I have a good knowledge of wikipedia policies and would like to get this pending changes reviewer rights to broaden by experience and get more expertise of Wikipedia. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:750h+

    I have made some very high quality articles (Aston Martin DB9 FA and Aston Martin Rapide at FAC) so I am very familiar with what content is reliable and what is not. I have reverted vandalism (in fact, reverting vandalism was the first edit I made) and whenever i seen vandalism, I take extreme pride in reverting it. Best 750h+ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello User:750h+ . Nice seeing you here! From a quick look at your contributions, it seems like you usually don't leave a warning when reverting vandalism nor an semi-automated edit summary. It's very easy to do with tools like WP:Twinkle. Could you start warning editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, nice to see you here to. :) Noted. 750h+ 12:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boneless Pizza!

    I have watched listed several article that have been protected as "pending changes" such as Charizard and Woody (Toy Story) and I would love to have an option to accept their edits if its constructive. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldRomean

    I think I have a decent understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've monitored recent changes and have mostly reverted vandalism whenever I see it, trying my best to always warn them. I think that being a pending changes reviewer will help me continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. GoldRomean (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whisky and more

    I have been registered for some time now and have recently gotten into more regular editing and monitoring of recent changes and pages that come up in publicity or news to check for currency and any wayward or malicious edits or mistakes. I have a good understanding (and am always learning and improving) of the basic and relevant policies for pending changes reviewer permission. I'd love to help make Wikipedia a better place for everyone by supporting pending reviews! Whisky and more (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Rollback

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:GoodHue291

    Hello! I'd like to have rollback rights to revert vandalism quickly. I usually use Twinkle to revert vandalism, but with rollback rights, it will be much faster in the blink of an eye. I've been seeing vandalism occur more frequently for some reason when I look at the "recent changes" logs. I want to help fight off vandalism. It's okay if I don't get it, but I want to have an opportunity to help out. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done You don't need rollback to undo inappropriate edits. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 00:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template editor

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:Magentic Manifestations

    Hi! I guess I would require this for doing certain edits with respect to certain templates, particularly with respect to Indian territories and transport. I have been making edits to templates within the ambit possible, but there are a couple of protected templates which would need additions (E.g. rint updation). So, it will be useful to have this. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Guidelines review:
    1. Green tickY (guideline: >1 year, applicant: 12)
    2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~17k)
    3. Green tickY (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~600)
    4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
    5. Red XN (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: 0)
    6. Red XN (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: 0)
    Primefac (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not inclined to grant due to lack of need. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done with no prejudice against re-requesting in the future. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"